Thank you for your August 18, 1999 letter in which you described a hazard apparently
not addressed by any specific OSHA standard, but which you believe might be cited by
OSHA under the General Duty Clause of the Act. The hazard you described was that
employees working at ground level in the vicinity of an operating aerial lift truck
were exposed to possible injury as result of being struck by the personnel bucket
when it is being lowered close to the ground.

In your letter you posed two related questions. In your first question you asked if
OSHA would cite a company whose employees were exposed to this hazard. In your second
question you inquired whether installation, on the aerial lift, of a device which would
activate an audible alarm whenever the personnel bucket was being lowered, would "address
the exposure sufficiently to eliminate any possible citations for the crushing exposure."

To your first question, the only answer I can offer is that OSHA might issue a citation for
such an exposure if all necessary elements of a general duty clause violation were found
to be present in a particular work citation. That is, the hazard could result in serious
injury, sufficient industry or employer knowledge of the hazard was present, and the
employer was aware that employees were exposed to the hazard. Since this hazard is not
addressed by any specific OSHA standard or by the applicable industry consensus
standard (ANSI A92.2), the determination of whether or not there is sufficient
employer knowledge present to justify and support a citation for this hazard would
necessarily be based on information, obtained during an OSHA inspection, that is specific
to the particular employer and work situation. Consequently, the question of whether or not
OSHA would issue a citation for this hazard must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Regarding your second question, the installation of an audible device to warn employees
that the bucket was being lowered would not, by itself, be viewed as acceptable abatement
of the hazard. Since we know of no empirical evidence that installation of such a device
would eliminate (or even reduce) the hazard, for the reasons that follow, we are not
prepared to agree that it would.

As you pointed out in your letter, OSHA construction standards do accept a reverse signal
alarm as an abatement method for protecting employees from the hazard presented by a
rearward moving vehicle which has a restricted view to the rear. At first glance, it
might seem that the situations are analogous, the difference being only horizontal
versus vertical movement. But the situations differ in a way that is significant. In the
case of the backing vehicle with a restricted view to the rear, it is not possible for the
operator to see if a pedestrian employee is in the vehicle's path. Use of a spotter or
reverse signal alarm may be the only feasible or practical means to reduce the hazard.
The vehicle operator can not eliminate the hazard simply by backing the vehicle cautiously.

However, operators of an aerial lift bucket can look over the side of the bucket and see
whether or not someone is working beneath them and close enough to be endangered by downward
movement of the bucket. Therefore, it is our view that the most effective method for
protecting employees from the hazard at issue is for the employer to ensure, through
appropriate training and supervision, that aerial lift operators exercise the same caution
when moving the bucket that is expected of them when they are moving the truck. That is,
that they do not move the bucket unless they can see that it is safe to do so.

We should also point out some of the limitations of audible warning alarms. The
effectiveness of audible alarms tends to diminish over time as workers get accustomed to the
noise. We would expect this phenomena to be especially problematic in work situations
where the employees are continually exposed to the alarm throughout their work shift, such
as, when working next to a bucket truck, since they are normally stationary when the aerial
bucket is in operation, and not moving in and out of the area as is often the case with
vehicles equipped with conventional back-up alarms. We are aware of accidents wherein
employees were seriously injured by backing vehicles which were equipped with functioning
back-up alarms.

Beside the tendency of the human brain to temporarily tune out re-occurring noise, other
factors that can result in workers not hearing an audible motion alarm include: a high
ambient noise level (such as that resulting from the operation of chain saws and chippers
next to the bucket truck), and the wearing of hearing protection. And, of course, some
workers may already have a hearing impairment that could prevent them from hearing an
audible motion alarm.

Another concern we have with reliance on an audible alarm is that employees operating the
aerial bucket might conclude that the presence of this device obviates the need for them
to look in the direction of movement before moving the bucket. We have seen where the
installation of back-up alarms on equipment, such as fork trucks, when combined with
inadequate training and supervision, can lead truck operators to assume pedestrian
employees will get out of their way as soon as the back-up alarm sounds, and to begin
moving the truck without first turning to look in the direction of travel.

We hope you find this responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any other questions
concerning this matter, you are invited to contact Geoff McKinstry, Safety Specialist,
at (617) 565-9893. We thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health.

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.